Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARQUARD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100710 · 1 · POWELL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:08 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1875-05-31 — 117th most senior of the 1489 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: MARTIN DITCH (1875-05-20). Immediately behind: WILSEY DITCH (1875-06-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9282.0 | 1875-05-31 | 1890-06-19 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 57 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4513, CA4377, CA4350.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4513 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA4377 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA4350 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 307 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 307 AF — 100% of that, and 8th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 323 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 164 | 1.0 |
| 1992 | 35 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 61 | 0.4 |
| 1993 | 699 | 15th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 304 | 2.3 |
| 1998 | 462 | 12th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 131 | 5.2 |
| 1999 | 299 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 157 | 1.9 |
| 2000 | 603 | 14th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 148 | 3.0 |
| 2001 | 65 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 34 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 318 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 217 | 1.1 |
| 2017 | 558 | 13th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 230 | 2.4 |
| 2018 | 289 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 225 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 429 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 183 | 2.2 |
| 2020 | 215 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 186 | 0.8 |
| 2021 | 233 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 167 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 307 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 205 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2720 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1976-2022 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.